The U.S. Supreme Court has finally ruled on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage, invoking the Fourteenth Amendment to require every state to license marriages between people of the same sex.

Over the years, gay activists have convinced some of the public that the inclusion of same-sex couples in legal marriage would not harm a vital social institution. But scant attention has been paid to how the redefinition of marriage will shape our legal system's treatment of nascent human life and the rights of natural parents.

Can we continue to become a more pro-life nation if the sanctuary that once welcomed children into the world changes in ways we do not yet fully understand?

During oral arguments for Obergefell v. Hodges and three other same-sex marriage cases, John Bursch, the lawyer representing the states, which were seeking to uphold laws that defined marriage as a union of one man and one woman, emphasized that legal marriage has been understood to protect children by formalizing their biological ties to their natural parents.

"The state doesn’t have an interest in love and emotion at all,” Bursch said. “It’s about binding children to their biological moms and dads.”

But Justice Sotomayor offered a response that clarified her preference for the gender-neutral and DNA-free term, "parent."

"No, I think they should be bound to their parent, because there are a lot of adopted children and they are not . . . thinking of biological moms and dads," said Justice Sotomayor.

Perhaps she sought to defend the rights and experience of adoptive parents, but her response reflected a pattern in legal arguments that uphold the right to same-sex marriage, while rejecting an understanding of marriage and family life that is anchored in the biology of sexual complementarity.

Indeed, the severing of marriage from procreation poses additional questions that have barely registered with the public. For example, why should the child have a right to grow up in a home with his or her biological mother and father when other would-be parents stand at the ready? And why should our legal system link the rights and responsibilities of the spouses to the care and protection of children, when childrearing is no longer the point of marriage?

Writing in The Human Life Review, Michael Tenaglia helps us understand why same-sex marriage should be a pro-life issue, and he does so, in part, by highlighting the dismissive treatment of procreation and biological ties in legal opinions that have advanced same-sex marriage as a constitutional right.

For example, when U.S. District Court Chief Judge Vaughn Walker issued his 2010 decision that overturned California's Prop 8, he

wrote not only that gender, the presence of a mother and father, and the biological basis of procreation were irrelevant to the question of marriage and child rearing, but that it was indeed irrational, from a constitutional perspective, to think they were relevant....

Immediately and inescapably, new human life is removed from treatment as a member of the human family with biological links to—and claims of right on—a mother and father, and instead becomes the object of the asserted rights of unrelated adults. The historic understanding of family law that considered, at least as a prima facie matter, biological links to the child, is now seen as irrational.

This helps explain why same-sex marriage poses a complex challenge that can't be ignored by the pro-life community. Indeed, Tenaglia predicts that the logic of this view of marriage will end with the abolishment of ​

the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, for no child can have the right to know his or her mother or father. And if no child has a claim on its biological parents, and its parents’ relationship to it are judged not as pre-legal, natural rights but as malleable by acts of positive law, then the value of that life itself becomes subject to that law rather than prior to it.

It will take time to explain the connection between a new constitutioal mandate and shifting legal and cultural expectations regarding the rights of natural parents and their children. It will also take time before our courts begin to litigate such matters in ways that embrace the logic of "marriage equality".

Writing in The Public Discourse, Adam MacLeod reports in a June 25 post that family law in Massachusetts, which embraced marraige equality more than a decade ago, still distingishes between same-sex and heterosexual marraige.

"Massachusetts law continues to presume that 'a man' who is married to the biological mother of a child is the child’s 'father,' MacLeod notes.

Meanwhile, "Massachusetts courts have ruled that, in a woman-woman 'marriage,' the non-biological mother is presumed to be the second parent if both the biological father and the non-biological mother consent, as in the case where the biological mother is artificially inseminated with the second woman’s knowledge."

MacLeod concludes: "True 'marriage equality' has not been achieved" in Massachusetts, "and it never will be, as long as states maintain an interest in enforcing the duties that parents owe to their children."

With the legalization of same-sex marriage, we must pray that remains the case.

And now that "marriage equality" has become the law of the land, the pro-life community must find a way to share its values and knowledge more broadly in a way that will intend no disrespect toward the families of same-sex couples.

Pro-lifers must also find a way to reach out to younger Americans. Many of them now understand the horror of abortion, but they are also likely to support "marriage equality" as a more inclusive, tolerant position. What will they do if they are asked to choose, and will they be forced to choose before long?

Tenaglia suggests we can find answers to these problems in the struggles and victories of the pro-life movement, which has returned from many decades in the wilderness with renewed commitment, tactics and hope.

It’s a complete contradiction to try to package pro-life understanding in a manner that ‘intends no disrespect to families of same-sex couples’ because the way same-sex couples will notmally obtain children is through human trafficking in surrogacy, genetic engineering, and the way it’s been done in for far too many years. So you see the pro-aborts picked up a spare which the Judas justices either were too dim to see ir were only too glad to grant. The utter corruptiin of the next generations is inevitable unless Catholics realize that they can no longer fove any kind of material support to the regime.

Posted by Ann Smith on Saturday, Jun, 27, 2015 10:25 AM (EDT):

“If ever there were a “settled science,” the teachings of the Magesterium should be the final word in what we understand to be the truth. How pointless is it then for us to listen to these eleventh-hour philosophers and their new interpretations of the Bible. Their opinions are not well-informed. Rather, they are guided by their writers’ unattainable wishes to have Heaven validate their sinful behavior.”

See the full article at www.SincerityandWisdon.com/gay-marriage-and-faith-inventing-the-truth/

Posted by Mary on Friday, Jun, 26, 2015 5:35 PM (EDT):

USA = SODOM AND GOMORRAH

The biblical account of Sodom and Gomorrah is recorded in Genesis chapters 18-19. Genesis chapter 18 records the Lord and two angels coming to speak with Abraham. The Lord informed Abraham that “the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous.”

Posted by Rick Evans on Friday, Jun, 26, 2015 5:33 PM (EDT):

My understanding is that in order for a marriage to be “sacramentalized” it needs to be consummated. Apparently some individuals think consummation is possible thru various or specific acts of sodomy. Perhaps you can help me out here Will Nier. How exactly do you think consummation can be accomplished according to God’s plan and in a way worthy of receiving His grace?

Posted by Mary on Friday, Jun, 26, 2015 5:29 PM (EDT):

I believe it can be done.

NEVER!!!!

Posted by mrscracker on Friday, Jun, 26, 2015 4:26 PM (EDT):

The question now is how will that happen if a couple are religious and wish to have their marriage also sacramentalized so they can also allow their marriage to become a means of receiving God’s grace. I believe it can be done.”
**********************
As long as they are an eligible, consenting man & woman with no impediments, there’s no problem. Never has been.

Posted by Will Nier on Friday, Jun, 26, 2015 3:53 PM (EDT):

Marriage hasn’t been redefined. We just now recognize that same sex marriage has always been a constitutional right and people were actually being discriminated against. Now gay couples can finally reach their full potential as human beings with in Marriage. The question now is how will that happen if a couple are religious and wish to have their marriage also sacramentalized so they can also allow their marriage to become a means of receiving God’s grace. I believe it can be done.

Posted by David on Friday, Jun, 26, 2015 2:26 PM (EDT):

If sermons on contraception don’t appear now, when will they? - after full blown persecution, of course.

Posted by mrscracker on Friday, Jun, 26, 2015 2:12 PM (EDT):

Children’s rights affected by surrogacy are generally ignored, but so are the women who are exploited, mostly impoverished 3rd World mothers.
To be fair, the international surrogacy industry is fueled largely by homosexual couples, but not exclusively.

Posted by JD on Friday, Jun, 26, 2015 1:22 PM (EDT):

Hmmm, sounds a bit like we are making inroads into the society of “The Giver” (by Lois Lowry). One aspect of that society is that certain women are used as “birthers” and other couples (I think all were male/female), who are unrelated to the child, are assigned parenting roles (I think they have to apply for that; I don’t remember it too well). The USA is fast becoming a progressivist paradise.

Posted by Rosemarie Kury on Friday, Jun, 26, 2015 1:04 PM (EDT):

I feel sorry for the children involved, but I think in some ways it was a mistake to stress the needs of children to have both a father and mother. As pointed out, now through fertilization techniques and surrogate mothers, some children won’t know their natural parents even if it is a heterosexual marriage. Also, there are many single unmarried mothers and the kids don’t know who the father is! This decision is bad as it goes against the Constitution enabling states rights. Furthermore if a minority can rule over the Supreme Court I can see future religious rights being violated. What will happen to Justice of the Peace or judges refusing to marry same sex couples? Will they be fined and put in jail? What about bakeries, florists etc.? This is only the tip of the iceberg. Sooner or later some in the LGBT community may try to sue churches as well. It could even involve the IRS , as they could tax the churches. I’m hoping and praying this doesn’t happen, but it would have been nice if the bishops had at least instituted a prayer campaign months before. I’m waiting for Pope Francis’s reaction.

Posted by Stephen on Friday, Jun, 26, 2015 1:00 PM (EDT):

Surprisingly, some of you are actually making sense. What you call the “sacrament” of marriage was never supported by Capitalism. Big business has gutted the middle class so most “traditional” families were weakened by economic instability.

The economy will improve now that same-sex marriage is finally declared a civil right, but marriage and families will no longer be defined by the stereotypical Nelson family.

Posted by mrscracker on Friday, Jun, 26, 2015 12:51 PM (EDT):

To effect an all powerful state, the family & the church are the last things standing in the way.

Posted by Paul Martin on Friday, Jun, 26, 2015 12:37 PM (EDT):

The rights of children have barely a nodding acquaintance with legal sanction of no fault divorce and same sex “marriage”. Sadly for me and my sons, this is not the stuff of public rhetoric and debate. It was our personal experience and painful reality when in 2009 after 17 years of marriage, my ex-wife ended the marriage, filed for divorce and moved her same-sex lover into our home. This came only three years after we adopted an infant boy from El Salvador whose mother was forced by very sad and difficult circumstances to give up her son in legal safe abandonment. Our biological son, then 13 years old, had strong feelings of betrayal by his mother. The unlaterial decision of two women left two families in ruins. Fast-foward five years and both women will be celebrating today’s supreme court decision at Sunday’s Pride Parade in SF. U.S. and state sanction of of no fault divorce and same-sex marriage are the scourage of marriage and intrigal to the gradual and unmistakable abolition of the rights of children.

Posted by mrscracker on Friday, Jun, 26, 2015 11:52 AM (EDT):

cowalker,
Some of those thoughts ran thru my mind, too. I think though, there’s quite a difference if absent or distant parents result from unforeseen circumstances.There’s always been death or separation, but those generally are not planned ahead deliberately.
I wish folks would talk more about children & less about adults. I appreciate that you did.

Posted by Jane B on Friday, Jun, 26, 2015 11:45 AM (EDT):

cowalker, doesn’t make it right or good or moral.

Posted by cowalker on Friday, Jun, 26, 2015 10:48 AM (EDT):

“And why should the child have a right to grow up in a home with his or her biological mother and father when other would-be parents stand at the ready?”

No fault divorce and social acceptance of single mothers effectively nullified this “right” over the last two generations. It was those legal and cultural changes that resulted in millions and millions of children growing up in households that did not include both biological parents. The effects of technological reproduction and gay marriage will be miniscule in comparison. It just looks silly to get hysterical over the gnats of surrogacy and same sex marriage when the camels of no fault divorce and single motherhood have owned this territory for forty years.

Join the Discussion

We encourage a lively and honest discussion of our content. We ask that charity guide your words.
By submitting this form, you are agreeing to our discussion guidelines.
Comments are published at our discretion. We won't publish comments that lack charity, are off topic, or are more than 400 words.
Thank you for keeping this forum thoughtful and respectful.

Joan Frawley Desmond, is the Register’s senior editor. She is an award-winning journalist widely published in Catholic, ecumenical and secular media. A graduate of the Pontifical John Paul II Institute for Studies of Marriage and Family, she lives with her family in California..